New Yamaha Pockettrak 2G recorder at DVinfo.net

David Ennis · May 10th, 2008, 08:04 AM

This was featured on the back cover of the B&H pro audio catalog I just got. It caught my attention for size, convenience, standard AAA battery acceptance in addition the the provided AAA rechargeable, and true USB 2.0 connectivity.

My main reservation is that the frequency response only goes down to 40Hz, vs the more standard 20Hz for hi fi equipment. Would that be a deal breaker for you guys?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...et_Stereo.html

Jim Boda · May 10th, 2008, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Ennis

...My main reservation is that the frequency response only goes down to 40Hz, vs the more standard 20Hz for hi fi equipment. Would that be a deal breaker for you guys?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...et_Stereo.html

It's not 24 bit ...nor does it record at 48k. Seems to be a better fit for the radio guys.

David Ennis · May 11th, 2008, 02:18 PM

Thanks Jim, but my question was about frequency response.

My old ears can't hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit depths. And I've read that the advantage is lost if there's any weak link in the recording or playback audio chain.

So for shooting school and community stage productions, 16 is fine for me. My Sony HiMD is 16 bit / 44.1 kHz and I like it fine, but the frequency response goes down to 20 Hz, not just 40 like the Yamaha.

Matthias Krause · May 11th, 2008, 04:04 PM

You get the Olympus LS-10 for less money and it offers more feaures and better recording quality.

David Ennis · May 11th, 2008, 05:14 PM

Thanks Matthias. B&H doesn't have the specs for some reason so I checked at the Olympus site. Wow! You are certainly correct. That's the one. One thing isn't clear though, so if you have one--does it upload at USB 2.0 or 1.O rate?

Jim Boda · May 11th, 2008, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Ennis

...My old ears can't hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit depths. And I've read that the advantage is lost if there's any weak link in the recording or playback audio chain.

So for shooting school and community stage productions, 16 is fine for me. My Sony HiMD is 16 bit / 44.1 kHz and I like it fine, but the frequency response goes down to 20 Hz, not just 40 like the Yamaha.

I rarely record anything below 80 hz now a days...
http://www.listenhear.co.uk/general_acoustics.htm

But, recording audio for video...I would never choose to record at 44.1 sample rate. I want to record audio at the same rate as the camera or above. For me, 48 khz is a minimum requirement. If it's going to DVD...it needs to be 48.

And if you are going to spend that much money on the external recorder ($350)...you might as well upgrade to 24 bit recordings. Hopefully, Yamaha will get it right on there next generation model.

Matthias Krause · May 11th, 2008, 06:00 PM

I´m pretty sure it´s USB 2.0. I have one and uploading is pretty fast. You could also always use a SD Card anyway. I got mine for a little less than $300 but it seems prices have gone up again slightly. You might find this interesting too: http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1928

David Ennis · May 11th, 2008, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Boda

... But, recording audio for video...I would never choose to record at 44.1 sample rate. I want to record audio at the same rate as the camera or above. For me, 48 khz is a minimum requirement ...

Well, to each his own I guess. I'd done 30 or so DVD projects with some tracks that were originally recorded at 44.1.

Marco Leavitt · May 11th, 2008, 09:36 PM

Upsampling to 48 kHz is no big deal. Also, there's no point in recording 24 bits on a lower end recorder. You have to spend at least $1,800.

Jim Boda · May 12th, 2008, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco Leavitt

Upsampling to 48 kHz is no big deal...

I've had to use 44.1 a couple of times because that's all there was...

Sure, it was no big deal. It's just an extra step. It's an extra step that will NOT sound as good as an original 48 khz recording and it will introduce sync problems in the edit that have to be dealt with. No big deal. Just extra work.

Quote:

....Also, there's no point in recording 24 bits on a lower end recorder. You have to spend at least $1,800.

I'm not sure how scientific that is. Sounds like another challenge for Myth Busters. The lower end 24 bit recorders also give you the choice to record at 16 bit if that is what you prefer.

IMO, the idea of using an external recorder is to improve the recording quality in comparison to the camera's ability to record audio...and not to introduce digital artifacts and sync problems.

Matthias Krause · May 12th, 2008, 09:22 AM

Okay, so now I have an audio newbie question. I always though if I record through the line-in the recorder bypasses its pre-amps. So shouldn´t I get better quality audio if I use the tape out from my MixPre to line-in of my Olympus than recording directly to my HV20? And how would it be different using a $2000+ recorder through line-in than using the Olympus line-in given I record the same sample rate since the better pre-amps of the expensive recorder wouldn´t come into play?

Marco Leavitt · May 13th, 2008, 12:49 AM

"I'm not sure how scientific that is. Sounds like another challenge for Myth Busters. The lower end 24 bit recorders also give you the choice to record at 16 bit if that is what you prefer."

Basically, the concept is you can't take advantage of the extra dynamic range of 24 bit unless the preamps are quiet enough. You just end up recording more hiss at a higher bit depth.

"So shouldn´t I get better quality audio if I use the tape out from my MixPre to line-in of my Olympus than recording directly to my HV20?"

I would think so. A better recorder will give you a higher signal to noise ratio though, and the ability to record at 24 bits.

David Ennis · May 13th, 2008, 03:37 AM

The myth, in the form of a hypothesis, that I'd submit to Myth Busters is:

"If the same audio is recorded at 24 bit depth and 16 bit depth with the best available components throughout the recording chain, and played through average home consumer components, the majority of randomly chosen listeners would be able to hear the difference in a blind A / B test."

ditto for 48kHz vs 44.1kHz

Jim Andrada · May 13th, 2008, 05:16 AM

This is fun. We could add a couple of more myths.

1) The majority of classical music fanatics with sound systems costing over $5k - $10k wouldn't notice the difference.

2) The majoriy of kids who drive down the street with the roof of the car pulsing from the sound would notice that the system was turned on.

In other words, I think one needs to consider the target end user in deciding on the whole recording chain. What's perfectly acceptable for one group would be deemed sadly lacking by another.

Matthias Krause · May 13th, 2008, 06:32 AM

I´m sure I would not hear the difference. But I always thought the main advantage of recording at a higher bitrate is that you get more leeway or headroom if you will for postproduction before the signal gets distorted. No?
And I still would be curious to know what the difference would be if you record to a 300 bucks recorder to line-in opposed to a 1.800 bucks recorder to line-in at the same bit rate?

May 10th, 2008, 08:04 AM	#1
David Ennis Fred Retread Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Hartford, CT Posts: 1,227	New Yamaha Pockettrak 2G recorder This was featured on the back cover of the B&H pro audio catalog I just got. It caught my attention for size, convenience, standard AAA battery acceptance in addition the the provided AAA rechargeable, and true USB 2.0 connectivity. My main reservation is that the frequency response only goes down to 40Hz, vs the more standard 20Hz for hi fi equipment. Would that be a deal breaker for you guys? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...et_Stereo.html __________________ "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence..." - Calvin Coolidge "My brain is wired to want to know how other things are wired." - Me

May 11th, 2008, 02:18 PM	#3
David Ennis Fred Retread Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Hartford, CT Posts: 1,227	Thanks Jim, but my question was about frequency response. My old ears can't hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit depths. And I've read that the advantage is lost if there's any weak link in the recording or playback audio chain. So for shooting school and community stage productions, 16 is fine for me. My Sony HiMD is 16 bit / 44.1 kHz and I like it fine, but the frequency response goes down to 20 Hz, not just 40 like the Yamaha. __________________ "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence..." - Calvin Coolidge "My brain is wired to want to know how other things are wired." - Me

May 11th, 2008, 05:14 PM	#5
David Ennis Fred Retread Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Hartford, CT Posts: 1,227	Thanks Matthias. B&H doesn't have the specs for some reason so I checked at the Olympus site. Wow! You are certainly correct. That's the one. One thing isn't clear though, so if you have one--does it upload at USB 2.0 or 1.O rate? __________________ "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence..." - Calvin Coolidge "My brain is wired to want to know how other things are wired." - Me

May 13th, 2008, 03:37 AM	#13
David Ennis Fred Retread Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Hartford, CT Posts: 1,227	The myth, in the form of a hypothesis, that I'd submit to Myth Busters is: "If the same audio is recorded at 24 bit depth and 16 bit depth with the best available components throughout the recording chain, and played through average home consumer components, the majority of randomly chosen listeners would be able to hear the difference in a blind A / B test." ditto for 48kHz vs 44.1kHz __________________ "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence..." - Calvin Coolidge "My brain is wired to want to know how other things are wired." - Me

May 11th, 2008, 04:04 PM	#4
Matthias Krause Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 203	You get the Olympus LS-10 for less money and it offers more feaures and better recording quality.

May 11th, 2008, 06:00 PM	#7
Matthias Krause Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 203	I´m pretty sure it´s USB 2.0. I have one and uploading is pretty fast. You could also always use a SD Card anyway. I got mine for a little less than $300 but it seems prices have gone up again slightly. You might find this interesting too: http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1928

May 11th, 2008, 09:36 PM	#9
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	Upsampling to 48 kHz is no big deal. Also, there's no point in recording 24 bits on a lower end recorder. You have to spend at least $1,800.

May 12th, 2008, 09:22 AM	#11
Matthias Krause Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 203	Okay, so now I have an audio newbie question. I always though if I record through the line-in the recorder bypasses its pre-amps. So shouldn´t I get better quality audio if I use the tape out from my MixPre to line-in of my Olympus than recording directly to my HV20? And how would it be different using a $2000+ recorder through line-in than using the Olympus line-in given I record the same sample rate since the better pre-amps of the expensive recorder wouldn´t come into play?

May 13th, 2008, 12:49 AM	#12
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	"I'm not sure how scientific that is. Sounds like another challenge for Myth Busters. The lower end 24 bit recorders also give you the choice to record at 16 bit if that is what you prefer." Basically, the concept is you can't take advantage of the extra dynamic range of 24 bit unless the preamps are quiet enough. You just end up recording more hiss at a higher bit depth. "So shouldn´t I get better quality audio if I use the tape out from my MixPre to line-in of my Olympus than recording directly to my HV20?" I would think so. A better recorder will give you a higher signal to noise ratio though, and the ability to record at 24 bits.

May 13th, 2008, 05:16 AM	#14
Jim Andrada Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Tucson AZ Posts: 2,211	This is fun. We could add a couple of more myths. 1) The majority of classical music fanatics with sound systems costing over $5k - $10k wouldn't notice the difference. 2) The majoriy of kids who drive down the street with the roof of the car pulsing from the sound would notice that the system was turned on. In other words, I think one needs to consider the target end user in deciding on the whole recording chain. What's perfectly acceptable for one group would be deemed sadly lacking by another.

May 13th, 2008, 06:32 AM	#15
Matthias Krause Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 203	I´m sure I would not hear the difference. But I always thought the main advantage of recording at a higher bitrate is that you get more leeway or headroom if you will for postproduction before the signal gets distorted. No? And I still would be curious to know what the difference would be if you record to a 300 bucks recorder to line-in opposed to a 1.800 bucks recorder to line-in at the same bit rate?